That Dot on the Screen: also, what about Born? and other objections to wavefunction physics

In this paper I address the most common objections to the claim that Schrodinger was right in 1926: the wavefunction provides the correct, and complete, description of atomic phenomena. I suggest that the line of droplets in the Wilson cloud chamber, the click of the ``photon detector", and ``that dot on the screen" can all be explained within a context of wavefunction models and Schrodinger's-type equations, albeit nonlinear. No auxiliary hypotheses about point particles or probabilities are required. The random locations of the triggered ``particle detectors" can be explained by ``chaos" (meaning sensitive dependence on initial conditions). Even Born's ad hoc invocation of probabilities may be justifiable in certain circumstances. As an illustration, I present simulations from a (toy) wavefunction ``particle-detectors" model.